EOS Upgrade - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/26/2005 06:11:43 PM · #1

I'm about to come into some money (recent graphic design contract) and have seriously started wondering if it's a good idea for me to upgrade my Rebel XT to a 20D?

I know, I just bought the Rebel, and I'm not expecting any significant capability increase from the 20D. I certainly don't think it's going to make me a better photographer. I was thinking more along the line of durability.

Is the 20D a significantly more sturdy camera? More of a long-term investment? Or is this just a silly idea?

Message edited by author 2005-07-26 18:12:40.

deapee

Kodak V803

07/26/2005 06:12:48 PM · #2

It's silly to keep messing around with the canons when you know what you need is the Nikon. :D

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

07/26/2005 06:14:20 PM · #3

Get some good quality lenses and a good tripod.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/26/2005 06:15:44 PM · #4

Originally posted by doctornick:

Get some good quality lenses and a good tripod.

So do you mean to say "NO, don't upgrade, just put the money into a good tripod and lenses"?

Or were you meaning "Don't forget to get that stuff, too.

justin_hewlett

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

07/26/2005 06:15:54 PM · #5

Owning neither, and in my limited understanding of each, I can think of two advantages to upgrading...Higher FPS on the 20D, and more durability. If you don't need faster FPS, then I would say it might not be worth it to upgrade...Maybe you could invest in a few lenses instead? Just my two cents, anyway...

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

07/26/2005 06:16:29 PM · #6

I don't think there is so much difference in durability that it's worth an upgrade to the 20D. If you are thinking that you'll REALLY be piling on exposures for business purposes, then neither may fit the bill, you may want to consider 1-series, with the XT as a backup. Consider this only if you feel that you'll exceed 50,000 exposures within 2 years or so.

Minutia

07/26/2005 06:19:16 PM · #7

I have the XT, and depending on how much money I came into, I would definatly go for the lenses. They will make a bigger impact on your photography. I'd like the 20D, for the durability and the fps, but when I upgrade I'm going straight to the 1D Mark II, but not until I have the lenses I want.

07/26/2005 06:20:55 PM · #8

Originally posted by Minutia:

Well, I'm going to be getting about $4200 for a graphic design job. I know it's a bit silly to start spending it in my head, but I can't help it. I was actually thinking about the upgrade, plus one of the better grade telephoto lenses, but I'm certainly interested in hearing your opinions.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

07/26/2005 06:22:22 PM · #9

Originally posted by aboutimage:

Originally posted by doctornick:
Get some good quality lenses and a good tripod.

So do you mean to say "NO, don't upgrade, just put the money into a good tripod and lenses"?

Or were you meaning "Don't forget to get that stuff, too.

I meant keep your Camera and spend on good quality lenses. Camera bodies come and go, good lenses stay.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

07/26/2005 06:25:26 PM · #10

If you had the original Rebel, I'd say upgrade for sure. But the XT is really a nice camera too... probably more comparable to the 20D than to the 300D.

I'd probably lean more towards lenses and other fun stuff. Maybe hold on to some of the loot and wait for Canon's anouncement in the fall. (I'm assuming they have something new coming this fall)

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

07/26/2005 06:31:24 PM · #11

Cool. Thanks for the good advice, everyone. You've helped me save some money, I imagine.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

07/26/2005 07:07:24 PM · #12

I don't think the 20D is that much more durable than the XT, if any at all. It does have a magnesium body vs. the plastic in XT though. If you intend to use the camera very harshly, then you need a Eos 1D, as I doubt a 20D can take more of a pounding than an XT. If you don't treat your equipment harshly, then you'll probably upgrade in a few years due to advancing technology and decreasing price, not because the XT broke down.

You won't get any better image with a 20D over an XT. If you buy lens, then you will get better images.

I'd recommend considering Canon EF-S 10-22, EF 16-35 f2.8L, 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200 f4/2.8L to spend your money on if you are a lens snob. Two lenses would probably cost you $2400.

If you aren't a lens snob. Then I recommend looking at Tokina 12-24, Tamron 17-35 Di, Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8, Tamron 28-75 XR Di, Simga 70-200 EX f2.8, Sigma 120-300 EX f2.8, Sigma 50-500. For $2400, you probably could buy three or four lenses (unless you go for the Sigma 120-300).

Message edited by author 2005-07-26 19:09:47.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

07/26/2005 07:13:41 PM · #13

Originally posted by yido:

You won't get any better image with a 20D over an XT. If you buy lens, then you will get better images.

I'd recommend considering Canon EF-S 10-22, EF 16-35 f2.8L, 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200 f4/2.8L to spend your money on if you are a lens snob. Two lenses would probably cost you $2400.

If you aren't a lens snob. Then I recommend looking at Tokina 12-24, Tamron 17-35 Di, Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8, Tamron 28-75 XR Di, Simga 70-200 EX f2.8, Sigma 120-300 EX f2.8, Sigma 50-500. For $2400, you probably could buy three or four lenses (unless you go for the Sigma 120-300).

Ahem... the tamron 17-35mm often tests BETTER than the 17-40L. The Tamron 28-75 also tests equal optically to the 24-70L for 1/3 the price. The sigma 120-300 ex F2.8 is a first rate lens... don't even kid yourself, canon has nothing in it's range to compete with it... also it's price is VERY high to be considered a non-snob lens.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

07/26/2005 07:19:34 PM · #14

oh... also
I believe the 20D is better in build than the XT. I don't think it's a huge difference however (this comming from someone who wasn't completely impressed by the build difference from my old 300D to the 1D).

Lenses work with all the cameras, bodies come and go. There will always be better bodies down the road, but the great lenses of today, will probably be just as good as the great lenses of tomorrow (coming from the guy using a 13 year old lens :-P )

filmguya

07/30/2005 10:32:43 AM · #15

hem... the tamron 17-35mm often tests BETTER than the 17-40L. The Tamron 28-75 also tests equal optically to the 24-70L for 1/3 the price. The sigma 120-300 ex F2.8 is a first rate lens... don't even kid yourself, canon has nothing in it's range to compete with it... also it's price is VERY high to be considered a non-snob lens.text

As far as the Tamron testing equally to the the canon 24-70. That canon Focuses at a whisper and so quickly and efficently when you don't have time to mess around.

jseyerle